From: Ron Winchester (phaedruswolff@hotmail.com)
Date: Wed Feb 16 2005 - 17:05:28 GMT
RON:
Simple fifth grade English taught us how to understand the meanings of words
in the context in which we read them. As opposed to categorizing, defining,
and explaining them, why not simply read the words are they were written to
mean?
ERIN: I don't know what you are trying to say here
Hi Erin,
RON: What I am saying here in my poorly structured sentence, is all words
have more than one meaning. The meaning of the word depends on its use. What
the author intends by her usage of the word is more important than the
meaning you might want to apply to it from prior usage from another author,
limited dictionary definition, or even prior philosophical meanings of the
word(s). If you read (pronounced reed) what Pirsig writes, you would have no
difficulty understanding his meaning of ‘Empirical’.
(earlier)
RON: I must come clean and tell you that I see all this attention to the
word as
silly; as a knee jerk, emotional reaction. Otherwise, it is as Scott offered
earlier -- reducing philosophy to a game. Either way, I see it as counter
productive to advancing your understanding.
ERIN: I will choose what is silly to spend time on and what is helpful to
advancing my understanding.
Ron: When I offer my view, or as “I see,” I am not suggesting you limit
yourself to how I see things. As I stated “I must come clean” means that I
am offering my honest view as to how I see this. You can use my honest view
against me if you see prejudices in what I offer.
The reason I continue to offer my thoughts is that, as I have offered
numerous times, I see myself as the ‘Know-nothing Philosopher.’ I certainly
don’t see my view as something you should follow blindly, and I certainly
would not advise you on how to advance 'Your' (meaning in you personally)
understanding.
ERIN: If you find it is not helping your understanding then ignore the
thread.
Ron: I do not demand that everything I read help my understanding. My
favorite literature is that which makes no pretences of helping my
understanding, but questions my understanding. If I could find value in
avoiding or limiting the meaning of ‘Empirical,’ then my understanding would
advance.
Whether or not the response to ‘Empirical’ being used by Pirsig is a
knee-jerk reaction or has philosophical implications, I have yet to see. I
just offered my honest opinion.
It appears that my usage of the word ‘Silly’ caused a knee-jerk reaction.
Would this be because ‘Silly’ has some philosophical baggage I am unaware?
If my responses to any of this cause difficulty for you in any way, you are
more than welcome to ignore my responses, and I will not belittle you
publicly or privately for doing so.
Do not over-concern with my thinking because I mean the term ‘Know-nothing
Philosopher’ to mean exactly that; I don’t ‘Know’ squat. Therefore my
intelligence cannot be insulted. This makes it difficult for me to
understand how someone else would think themselves so intelligent their's
can.
Forgive me?
>From: Erin <macavity11@yahoo.com>
>Reply-To: moq_discuss@moq.org
>To: moq_discuss@moq.org
>Subject: Re: MD Pure experience and the Kantian problematic
>Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2005 14:39:29 -0800 (PST)
>
>
>
>Ron Winchester <phaedruswolff@hotmail.com> wrote:
>RON: Each individual can have their own exprience, and it
>can be empirical to them. Whether its interpretation is emprical to society
>depends on the static patterns, and whether it works its way in.
>
>ERIN: So you do see a difference between these experiences? Then why not
>distinguish them. To me it is like saying dynamic quality and static
>quality is just quality so just call them quality. If things are different
>in some way then I find it helps to clarify to distinguish them. I would
>call both experience but only the latter empirical.
>
>
>RON: I see no reason to categorize the experiences under subcategories of
>what is
>legitimate, and what is not.
>
>ERIN: I already said I don't agree with interchanging verifiable and
>validity/legitimacy
>
>RON:
>Simple fifth grade English taught us how to understand the meanings of
>words
>in the context in which we read them. As opposed to categorizing, defining,
>and explaining them, why not simply read the words are they were written to
>mean?
>
>ERIN: I don't know what you are trying to say here
>
>RON: I must come clean and tell you that I see all this attention to the
>word as
>silly; as a knee jerk, emotional reaction. Otherwise, it is as Scott
>offered
>earlier -- reducing philosophy to a game. Either way, I see it as counter
>productive to advancing your understanding.
>
>ERIN: I will choose what is silly to spend time on and what is helpful to
>advancing my understanding. If you find it is not helping your
>understanding then ignore the thread.
>
>
>
_________________________________________________________________
Don’t just search. Find. Check out the new MSN Search!
http://search.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200636ave/direct/01/
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archives:
Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Feb 16 2005 - 17:37:26 GMT